analyze_file

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full behavioral burden. It mentions the directory handling behavior and includeContent default, but fails to disclose critical LLM-specific traits: whether results are cached, approximate cost/token usage, timeout behavior, or what the analysis output structure looks like. 'LLM analysis' is vague regarding actual computational behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences with no filler. Front-loaded with primary purpose. However, the third sentence merely restates schema information, and the second sentence about directories could be more sharply integrated. Efficient but not optimally structured for quick parsing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 100% schema coverage, the description adequately covers the input contract without redundancy. However, with no output schema and many sibling alternatives, the description should explain return value structure or analysis scope to be minimally complete. Missing explanation of format enum implications and analysisType differentiation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema— it repeats the includeContent default (already in schema) and restates directory behavior (also in path description). It does not add syntax examples, valid path formats, or clarify the distinction between analysisType enum values (quality vs security vs full).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clear verb+resource ('LLM analysis for one file') and specifies the singular file scope, which distinguishes it from multi-file or codebase-wide analysis siblings like analyze_impact. However, it does not differentiate from similar analysis tools (analyze_test_gaps, code_quality_analyzer) or explain what 'LLM analysis' specifically entails.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides specific behavior guidance for directory inputs ('returns candidate-file hints'), but lacks any guidance on when to select this tool versus siblings like analyze_impact, codebase_qa, or code_quality_analyzer. No mention of prerequisites, file size limits, or when to use specific analysisType values.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.